Civil Revision No. 5299 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5299 of 2008
Date of decision:- 23.01.2009.
Kalpana and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Surender Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral)
By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, petitioners-plaintiffs have prayed for setting aside the impugned order
dated 25.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Charkhi Dadri whereby their application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for correction of the decree has been declined.
Petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,17,000/- on
14.10.2003 and the same was decreed on 24.10.2007. The decree reads as under:-
“It is, ordered that suit of the plaintiffs succeeds.
Hence, the same is hereby decreed with costs throughout.
Resultantly, plaintiffs are declared entitled to recover their
2/3rd share in the principal amount of Rs.2,44,000/- and
Rs.65,000/- from the defendant with agreed interest @ 2% per
mensum alongwith pendente lite and future interest on
principal amount @ 6% per annum from filing of the present
suit till actual realization of the decretal amount.”
Thereafter the appeal qua the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007
was filed by contesting respondent No.1 Surender Kumar and admittedly the same
is pending. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Section 152 of the
Civil Revision No. 5299 of 2008 -2-
Code of Civil Procedure on 06.11.2007 for correction in the decree by stating that
it has been ordered that “defendant Surender Singh agreed interest @ 2% per
mensum alongwith pendente lite” and thereafter while passing the order that
“future interest on principal amount @ 6% per annum” and further said “from
filing of the present suit till actual realization of the decretal amount” in which
“from filing of the present suit” is wrongly written in the decree and is a clerical
mistake because in the suit the Court has already granted interest @ 2% per
mensum.
The learned Additional Civil Judge (Charkhi Dadri) vide impugned
order dated 25.07.2008 dismissed the application as no clerical mistake while
deciding interest as alleged was found.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
opinion that learned Trial Court has correctly decided the application as in the
decree there is no clerical or mathematical mistake. The decree is quite clear and
if at all there is an ambiguity, it is to be seen by the learned Executing Court at the
appropriate time. Further, the decree itself is admittedly under appeal. Therefore,
no ground for interference under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is made
out.
Dismissed.
January 23, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE